Whenever someone wants to point out simple facts like, “Male-on-male sodomy is an abomination,” or, “Men dressing like women and calling themselves ladies is a freak show,” the Social Justice Warriors start their shrieking:
OH MY GOD! THAT’S HATE SPEECH! YOU’RE A BULLY!
Then they inevitably cite some statistics about how LGBT people suffer from a super high suicide rate due to social and religious stigma. The implication is, by morally denouncing LGBT fahisha, you are driving people to suicide, and, furthermore, religious teachings against LGBT are complicit in the suicides of scores of poor homos.
First of all, if hearing moral facts were to drive a person to suicide, that doesn’t mean we change the moral facts. If hearing that secretly diddling little kids in the closet is wrong drives a pedo to kill himself, that’s the pedo’s problem. We’re not going to start an anti-bullying campaign to normalize closet diddling just so that the pedo suicide rate drops.
Same for LGBT. Don’t like the fact that the world thinks rectal coitus among men and vigorous body rubbing among women is disgusting and depraved? Well, too bad for you. If you think offing yourself is the only way to cope, that’s your problem, not the world’s.
Now, putting all this aside, it turns out that the whole premise of this discussion is based on pure fiction:
In a stunning move, a professional journal has retracted a 2014 study that purported to prove LGBT persons experience negative health consequences due to the suffering a heteronormative world inflicts on them by stigmatizing them.
“Structural Stigma and All-cause Mortality in Sexual Minority Populations,” published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, can still be found online but with “RETRACTED” in bright, red bold capital letters stamped across every page.
When it was first published, the study — conducted by a team of researchers led by Columbia University professor Mark Hatzenbuehler — was widely praised by LGBT activists and a supportive mainstream media who were happy to indict Christian morals as hazardous to the health of gays.
The authors declared that sexual minorities living in “high-prejudice communities” have a 12-year shorter life expectancy. They also pointed to a striking 18-year difference in the average age of suicide for sexual minorities living in “high-prejudice (age 37.5)” versus “low-prejudice (age 55.7) communities.”
The bottom line of the report was that attitudes and behaviors perceived to be negative toward members of the LGBT world need to be rooted out. In essence, the moral objections of Christians and others were to blame not only for victimizing gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, but for cutting years — even decades — off their lives.
Imagine how dumb you would have to be to believe this nonsense in the first place. A 12-year difference in life expectancy is ginormous. The difference in average life expectancy between the US and “underdeveloped” countries like Ecuador or Jamaica, for example, is only 3 or 4 years according to the UN. There are a thousand different variables that could possibly affect the difference in life expectancy between two countries as different as the US and Ecuador. But we are supposed to believe that one single factor is causing a 12-year difference in life expectancy for LGBT individuals who are otherwise equal to non-LGBT individuals in every single way, including country, economic status, education, etc., except for preference for sodomy?
I mean, just look at some of the most prominent, wealthiest gays in the world. Do they look like they are suffering terribly, on the brink of death due to an attenuated life expectancy?
Of course, there were people who called out this BS research when it first came out.
The retraction vindicates researcher sociology professor Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin who was roundly condemned by the liberal press for debunking the Hatzenbuehler study after he discovered that its findings could not be replicated. “Replication” is an important way that researchers confirm the validity of study results. If similar results cannot be produced by others, then some component of the original study was flawed.
In 2017, Regnerus published his own study in the same journal, reporting widely varying results.
Regnerus’ findings were summarily dismissed by liberal media outlets.
The headline of a piece by ThinkProgress’ Zach Ford blared, “Anti-gay researcher now tries to claim stigma doesn’t harm LGBT people; conservatives are eager to reject research sympathetic to the LGBT community.”
Apparently, the only reason someone would protest LGBT-friendly scientific results is if he were a raging homophobe (which, admittedly, is not a bad thing).
Well, now we know that those LGBT-friendly scientific results which so conveniently served the liberal narrative, turned out to be completely and utterly baseless. I guess reality is homophobic, too.
Regnerus first raised the ire of the LGBT movement in 2012 when he published his “New Family Structures Study,” offering results that conflicted with the reports of less scientifically rigorous studies claiming children raised in gay and lesbian households fared as well or better than those raised in two-parent homes by the child’s mother and father.
Progressive activists who rejected Regnerus’ conclusions attacked his professionalism and sought not only to have the study retracted but to shipwreck his career. In the end, Regnerus’ research was fully vindicated and he was later made a full professor of at the University of Texas.
This is why you can’t trust mainstream media and even large segments of psychological and sociological research that touches on LGBT issues. There is such a strong pro-homo bias in academia that only Allah knows how much of the “official studies” are fudged to favor man-on-man rectal activities and portray these people as victims, when they are anything but.